stroke, or short critical opinion, which did not harmonise with the private feelings of the Earl of Anglesea.  In consequence of the volume not being much enlarged to the eye, and being unaccompanied by a single line of preface to inform us of the value of this more complete edition, the booksellers imagine that there can be no material difference between the two editions, and wonder at the bibliopolical mystery that they can afford to sell the edition of 1682 at ten shillings, and have five guineas for the edition of 1732!  Hume who, I have been told, wrote his history usually on a sofa, with the epicurean indolence of his fine genius, always refers to the old truncated and faithless edition of Whitelocke—­so little in his day did the critical history of books enter into the studies of authors, or such was the carelessness of our historian!  There is more philosophy in editions than some philosophers are aware of.  Perhaps most “Memoirs” have been unfaithfully published, “curtailed of their fair proportions;” and not a few might be noticed which subsequent editors have restored to their original state, by uniting their dislocated limbs.  Unquestionably Passion has sometimes annihilated manuscripts, and tamely revenged itself on the papers of hated writers!  Louis the Fourteenth, with his own hands, after the death of Fenelon, burnt all the manuscripts which the Duke of Burgundy had preserved of his preceptor.

As an example of the suppressors and dilapidators of manuscripts, I shall give an extraordinary fact concerning Louis the Fourteenth, more in his favour.  His character appears, like some other historical personages, equally disguised by adulation and calumny.  That monarch was not the Nero which his revocation of the edict of Nantes made him seem to the French protestants.  He was far from approving of the violent measures of his catholic clergy.  This opinion of that sovereign was, however, carefully suppressed, when his “Instructions to the Dauphin” were first published.  It is now ascertained that Louis the Fourteenth was for many years equally zealous and industrious; and, among other useful attempts, composed an elaborate “Discours” for the dauphin for his future conduct.  The king gave his manuscript to Pelisson to revise; but after the revision our royal writer frequently inserted additional paragraphs.  The work first appeared in an anonymous “Recueil d’Opuscules Litteraires, Amsterdam, 1767,” which Barbier, in his “Anonymes,” tells us was “redige par Pelisson; le tout publie par l’Abbe Olivet.”  When at length the printed work was collated with the manuscript original, several suppressions of the royal sentiments appeared; and the editors, too catholic, had, with more particular caution, thrown aside what clearly showed Louis the Fourteenth was far from approving of the violences used against the protestants.  The following passage was entirely omitted:  “It seems to me, my son, that those who employ extreme and violent